Avatar coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

When I first saw this online, I immediately looked for the "just joking!" follow-up. (Thanks to whoever said they did that earlier in this thread! I didn't feel so bad.)

I have a few thoughts. #1 - I agree with the person that said that this addition is probably about attracting new people to the park, not for die-hard WDW lovers. #2 - Avatar definitely does NOT have staying power like Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc... Even if it does attract new guests, I doubt they'll be repeat guests, but I could be wrong. #3 - I don't see the fit for DAK, not really. The movie was not very kid-friendly. Many of my favorite attractions at WDW aren't (the Tower, Expedition Everest), but they're attractions, not entire lands. I think they will have to change Avatar's tone to make the land family-friendly.

#4 - I am very nervous for this addition, and would rather have seen Beastly Kingdom FOR SURE...but I will cross my fingers and hope for the best. Generally, I think WDI does amazing work, and I like many of the recent additions to the park very much. Hopefully, they won't let us down. I agree with the people that have basically said, "It doesn't make much sense now, but let's not freak out until we've seen the plans."

I will keep an open mind... But I don't know what the future will hold... I think it is not gonna be what they think...

I guess I'm not seeing any of the negative arguments here.

It's going to be a land based upon the environment from the movie. What is not family friendly about that?

And how is a land based on a movie that focused heavily on nature/environment not suited for AK?

If they do this, and do it right, I think it will be pretty outstanding.

i think they will do it right... and faithful... the only question becomes relevancy... if only they could begin construction AFTER the first sequel is released... if it flops... you see one attraction... if its huge... Avatarland here we come...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

I guess I'm not seeing any of the negative arguments here.

It's going to be a land based upon the environment from the movie. What is not family friendly about that?

And how is a land based on a movie that focused heavily on nature/environment not suited for AK?

If they do this, and do it right, I think it will be pretty outstanding.

---

I just don't know how comfortable I am with a non-Disney property on Disney property as an entire land. I still stand by my thought that this belongs as a single attraction in DHS, or better yet, as part of Universal. Even as an "outdoor" movie, AK isn't a solid fit.

Fair enough. I just don't see what there is to be uncomfortable about. Is it an ownership/rights issue?

Not necessarily. They successfully integrated non-properties into DHS. Heck, they acquired the Muppet franchise. I guess it's just a matter of placement. Well, that and deciding that an entire land is necessary when a single attraction might do better. I have no idea as it is too soon to tell, but at face value, I'm just not buying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supernova

I thought the whole idea behind AK was living in the real world, one of the reasons why, of all the lands they decided to scrap when money got tight, was Beastly Kingdom. Still doesn't fit to me.

---

My first thought when I read this news article (which was today because I've been out of touch with the "real" world for a week) was that maybe, just maybe, this will also bring Beastly Kingdom back into reality. All I can figure is that was a land that was for mythical/fictional creatures... and the creatures in Avatar are just that.

I dunno... I echo the thoughts of so many others that it seems like this is their answer to the Harry Potter land of Universal. I'm excited to see what they come up with and I am trying not to go into it with any preconceptions but it's difficult.

I personally would've been much happier hearing that the Cars land was going to be duplicated at WDW or they were going to build a New Orleans themed land like DL and tie it in with Princess & The Frog. Any other actual Disney movie tie-in type thing would've made more sense to me.

We shall see though. I eagerly await the first construction photos on the Dis News sites! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BamaJenn

My first thought when I read this news article (which was today because I've been out of touch with the "real" world for a week) was that maybe, just maybe, this will also bring Beastly Kingdom back into reality. All I can figure is that was a land that was for mythical/fictional creatures... and the creatures in Avatar are just that.

---

I'm not certain Avatar was the sort of thing Rohde and friends were waiting on in order to re-implement their Beastly Kingdom idea. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BamaJenn

I dunno... I echo the thoughts of so many others that it seems like this is their answer to the Harry Potter land of Universal. I'm excited to see what they come up with and I am trying not to go into it with any preconceptions but it's difficult.

---

Avatar ≠ Harry Potter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BamaJenn

I personally would've been much happier hearing that the Cars land was going to be duplicated at WDW or they were going to build a New Orleans themed land like DL and tie it in with Princess & The Frog. Any other actual Disney movie tie-in type thing would've made more sense to me.

---

Carsland would have been a great move, especially with the heavy presence Pixar already has at DHS. The park is too small, and although there might not be enough room to expand, that park really does need something else to do once you get off Toy Story Mania. As for Princess & the Frog, the movie flopped, so god-willing, we won't be seeing any more tie-ins there. I was thrilled to see the river boat show go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supernova

I'm not certain Avatar was the sort of thing Rohde and friends were waiting on in order to re-implement their Beastly Kingdom idea. :(

---

Cameron had begun some early concept work on Avatar around the same time Animal Kingdom opened up. And from the articles I read he was always looking to work with Disney in some capacity. So while Avatar wasn't at the fore front of the early Beastly Kingdom concepts it is possible that Rhode and few other Imagineers may have saw some early Avatar work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiggerRPh

Okay….here's my final take on "Avatar-Land"…I am cautiously optimistic. I am not excited or enthused. I'm not of the group that think that this the greatest thing since Walt picked up a pencil, but I'm also not of the group that thinks that this is the death knell of the company, that this was the worse thing they could do. I've never seen the movie. I trust that Cameron & WDI will do this well, especially with a healthy budget…both are detail oriented. I am willing to wait and see what develops.

---

That pretty much somes it up for me.

We all have our own opions, which is great! but here's a question: Where will this land go?
Would FotLK finally get it's move over to Africa and be built where Camp Minnie-Mickey is?...

I listened to another podcast the other night on my way home from work and they had some interesting points. Their feeling on this is that Disney jumped on getting Avatar because they didn't want Universal to get it. Apparently there was a time frame when Avatar could have gone to either company. It seems Disney jumped on the chance now to keep costs down when/if Cameron releases sequels.

The other point they made was, with the incredibly large treasure trove of intellectual properties they already own why would Disney go outside for inspiration for a new land? Do they not have faith in their own properties or in WDI's ability to transform those prperties into successful ventures?

Remember even though they own Marvel they can't use any of those characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohiodisneydad

I listened to another podcast the other night on my way home from work and they had some interesting points. Their feeling on this is that Disney jumped on getting Avatar because they didn't want Universal to get it. Apparently there was a time frame when Avatar could have gone to either company. It seems Disney jumped on the chance now to keep costs down when/if Cameron releases sequels.

The other point they made was, with the incredibly large treasure trove of intellectual properties they already own why would Disney go outside for inspiration for a new land? Do they not have faith in their own properties or in WDI's ability to transform those prperties into successful ventures?

---

i heard this as well... and i thin it is the response to HP... no doubt... i think Disney realized that with Avatar maybe they could kill 2 birds with 1 stone... solve the AK half day issue while taking something away from Universal at the same time (Avatar and attendance) the problem i see is that Disney jumped at this because they thought they might lose it... i dunno if the film will survive the sequels...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAR

Remember even though they own Marvel they can't use any of those characters.

---

they can eventually... and they will... once the deal with Universal ends they will certainly be making Universal re-theme the entire area...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JNota0005DakMC

they can eventually... and they will... once the deal with Universal ends they will certainly be making Universal re-theme the entire area...

---

I don't know much about the deal Universal has that allows them to continue to use Marvel characters. Is it a self renewing deal that only requires one party to renew, ala the Gitmo lease type thing? I had read that Universal wasn't allowed to add anymore marvel properties to the parks and they had to keep what they had in top operating condition.

Maybe the answer to my question belongs in another post.